Public Law Studies Quarterly

The Teleological Approach in the General Comments of the ‎Human Rights Committee

Document Type : Article

Authors

Sassan Seyrafi 1
Hossein Sayyad Abdi 2

1 Assistant Prof., Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 MA. in Human Rights law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2022.349228.3190
Abstract
As the monitoring body of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Human Rights Committee (HRC) has always enjoyed a prominent position among treaty bodies which monitor the implementation of human rights treaties by states parties. One the functions performed by the HRC is the issuing of so-called General Comments on the ICCPR. A General Comment is a document whereby the HRC provides its interpretative commentary on one of the rights recognized by the ICCPR or other topics related thereto. As such, the General Comments are considered as a prime examples of treaty interpretation. The question to be answered in this respect is, given the various methods of interpretation, which Interpretive method or methods is used by the HRC in its General Comments? To answer this question, the present paper adopts an inductive approach so as to use statistical data about the subject. The results indicate that the teleological method is pervasive in the General Comments of the HRC. 

Keywords

general comments
Human ‎Rights Committee
‎interpretive method
the ‎International Covenant on ‎Civil and Political Rights
‎teleological interpretation
‎treaty
Vienna Convention ‎on the Law of Treaties.‎

  1. English

    1. A) Books
    2. Aust, Anthony (2010,. Handbook of International Law, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
    3. Aust, Anthony (2007), Modern Treaty Law and Practice, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
    4. Bjorge, Eirik (2014), The Evolutionary Interpretation of Treaties, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
    5. Buga, Irina (2018), Modification of Treaties by Subsequent Practice, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
    6. Crawford, James (2012), Brownlie's Principles of Public International Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
    7. Dorr, Oliver; Schmalenbach, Kirsten (2018), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties A Commentary, Berlin, Springer.
    8. Gardiner, Richard K (2003), International Law, Harlow, Pearson Longman.
    9. Jayawickrama, Nihal (2002), The Judicial Application of Human Rights Law, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
    10. Linderfalk, Ulf (2007), On the Interpretation of Treaties, Translated by Peggy Oscarsson, Dordrecht, Springer.
    11. Lowe, Vaughan (2007), International Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
    12. McNair, Arnold (1986), The Law of Treaties, New York, Oxford University Press.
    13. Orakhelashvili, Alexander (2008), The Interpretation of Acts and Rules in Public International Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
    14. Popa, Liliana E (2018), Patterns of Treaty Interpretation as Anti-Fragmentation Tools, Switzerland, Springer.
    15. Romani, Carlos Fernandez de Casadevante y (2007), Sovereignty and Interpretation of International Norms, Berlin, Springer.
    16. Shaw, Malcolm N (2008), International Law, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
    17. Sinclair, Ian (1984), The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Manchester, Manchester University Press.
    18. Slocum, Brian G (2015), Ordinary Meaning, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
    19. Smith, Rhona K. M (2012), Textbook on International Human Rights, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
    20. Staubach, Peter G (2018), The Rule of Unwritten International Law, New York, Routledge.
    21. Villiger, Mark E (2009), Commentary on the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Boston, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Bernhardt, Rudolf (1999), "Evolutive Treaty Interpretation, Especially of the European Convention on Human Rights", German Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 42, pp. 11-25.
    3. Etinski, Rodoljub M (2016), "Means of Interpretation and their Interrelationship", Zbornik Radova, Vol. 50, pp. 9-38.
    4. Fox, Hazel (2010), "Article 31(3) (a) and (b) of the Vienna Convention and the Kasikili/Sedudu Island Case", in: Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Olufemi Elias and Panos Merkouris (eds.), Treaty Interpretation and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: 30 Years on, Boston, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, pp. 59-74.
    5. Fuentes, Alejandro (2020), "Systematic Interpretation of the American Convention on Human Rights", Journal of the Belarusian State University International Relations, Vol. 1, pp. 94-101.
    6. Helmersen, Sondre Torp (2013), "Evolutive Treaty Interpretation: Legality, Semantics and Distinctions", European Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 1, pp. 127-148.
    7. Hulme, Max H (2016), "Preambles in Treaty Interpretation", University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 164, pp. 1281-1346.
    8. Jonas, David S.; Saunders, Thomas N. (2010), "The Object and Purpose of a Treaty: Three Interpretive Methods", Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, vol. 43, pp. 565-610.
    9. Killander, Magnus (2010), "Interpreting Regional Human Rights Treaties", Sur-International Journal on Human Rights, Vol. 13, pp. 145-170.
    10. Klabbers, Jan (2010), "Virtuous Interpretation", in: Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Olufemi Elias and Panos Merkouris (eds.), Treaty Interpretation and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: 30 Years on, Boston, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, pp. 17-38.
    11. Letsas, George (2004), "The Truth in Autonomous Concepts: How to Interpret the ECHR", European Journal of International Law, Vol. 15, pp. 279-305.
    12. Maftei, Jana; Coman, Varvara Licuta (2012), "Interpretation of Treaties", Acta Universitatis Danubius, Vol. 2, pp. 16-30.
    13. Marochini, Masa (2014), "The Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights", Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Splitu, Vol. 51, pp. 63-84.
    14. Osamu, Inagaki (2015), "Evolutionary Interpretation of Treaties Re-examined: The Two-Stage Reasoning", Journal of International Cooperation Studies, Vol. 22, pp. 127-149.
    15. Schwindt, Constance Jean (2000), "Interpreting the United Nations Charter: From Treaty to World Constitution", U. C. Davis Journal of International Law & Policy, vol. 2, pp. 193-216.
    16. Wouters, Jan; Vidal, Maarten (2006), "Domestic Courts and Treaty Interpretation", Institute for International Law K. U. Leuven Faculty of Law, Vol. 103, pp. 3-18.

     

    1. C) Cases
    2. Eurpean Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), (Emonet and Others v. Switzerland), Judgment (13 Dec. 2007), Application No. 39051/03.
    3. European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), (Johnston and Others v. Ireland), Judgment (18 Dec. 1986), Application No. 9697/82.
    4. International Court of Justice (ICJ), Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey), Judgement (19 Dec. 1978), I.C.J. Reports 1978.
    5. International Court of Justice (ICJ), Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), Merits, Judgment (30 Nov. 2010), I.C.J. Reports 2010.
    6. International Court of Justice (ICJ), Avena and other Mexican National (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment (31 March 2004), I.C.J. Reports 2004.
    7. International Court of Justice (ICJ), Constitution of the Maritime Safety Committee of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization, Advisory Opinion (8 June 1960), I.C.J. Reports 1960.
    8. International Court of Justice (ICJ), Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and Egypt, Advisory Opinion (20 Dec. 1980), I.C.J. Reports 1980.
    9. International Court of Justice (ICJ), Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador and Honduras v. Nicaragua), Judgment (11 Sep. 1992), I.C.J. Reports 1992.
    10. International Court of Justice (ICJ), Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Judgment (20 Dec. 1974), I.C.J. Reports 1974.
    11. International Court of Justice (ICJ), Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Preliminary Objection, Judgment (12 Dec. 1996), I.C.J. Reports 1996.
    12. International Court of Justice (ICJ), Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Portugal v. India), Preliminary Objections, Judgment (26 Nov. 1957), I.C.J. Reports 1957.
    13. International Court of Justice (ICJ), Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France v. United States of America), Judgment (27 Aug. 1952), I.C.J. Reports 1952.
    14. International Court of Justice (ICJ), The Gabcikivo-Nagymaros Project (Hungry v. Slovakia), Judgment (25 Sep. 1997), I.C.J. Reports 1997.

     

    1. D) Documents
    2. Human Rights Committee (HRC), General Comment No. 9: Article 10 (Humane Treatment of Persons Deprived of their Liberty), INT/CCPR/GEC/4719/E, 16th Session (1982).
    3. Human Rights Committee (HRC), General Comment No. 17: Article 24 (Rights of the Child), INT/CCPR/GEC/6623/E, 35th Session (1989).
    4. Human Rights Committee (HRC), General Comment No. 20: Article 7 (Prohibition of Torture, or other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment), INT/CCPR/GEC/6621/E, 44th Session (1992).
    5. Human Rights Committee (HRC), General Comment No. 34: Article19: Freedoms of Opinion and Expression, CCPR/C/GC/34, 102nd Session (2011).
    6. Human Rights Committee (HRC), General Comment No. 35: Article 9 (Liberty and Security of Person), CCPR/C/GC/35, 112th Session (2014).
    7. Human Rights Committee (HRC), General Comment No. 36: Article 6: Right to Life, CCPR/C/GC/36, 124th Session (2018).
    8. International Law Commission (ILC), Yearbook of the International Law Commission (Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with Commentaries), Volume II, A/CN.4/SER.A/1966/Add.1, 18th Session (1966).
Public Law Studies Quarterly
Volume 53, Issue 1
Spring 2023
Spring 2023
Pages 67-96

  • Receive Date 27 September 2022
  • Accept Date 24 October 2022

Home

Journal Process Ethics

Peer Review Process

Submission

Indexing and Abstracting

Contact Us